Comments on: Swindle and the IPCC TAR Spaghetti Graph

By: How IPCC AR4 authors defended the Briffa data deletions « Climate Audit

How IPCC AR4 authors defended the Briffa data deletions « Climate Audit — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:14:49 +0000

[...] the bidding first. I recently discussed the truncation of Briffa et al 2001 in the IPCC TAR spaghetti graph here. Below I show what the TAR [...]

By: bender

bender — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:12:51 +0000

Was it a *reviewer* who suggested the truncation? Who reviewed this paper? Did Mann review it? Did *he* suggest the truncation?

[Keith, throw him under the bus while you still can.]

By: bender

bender — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:10:41 +0000

In the spaghetti graph for Briffa et al 2001, the inconvenient divergence is deleted for the first time.

I assume this is referring to "plate 3" in the paper, p. 2938. Steve: Yes. But as I noted in recently (Heartland presentation), I subsequently noticed that the deletion of post-1960 can be traced back earlier to Briffa and Osborn 1999 ( a short comment article).

By: How to be a climate science auditor, part 2: The forgotten climategate emails « Deep Climate

Sat, 15 May 2010 05:58:42 +0000

[...] McIntyre has had a bee in his bonnet about this figure for a long time, as seen in a 2007 ClimateAusit post comparing Briffa and other IPCC authors to Martin Durkin of Great Global Warm…. [...]

By: A Change In Climate, Part 1 « ORBIS

A Change In Climate, Part 1 « ORBIS — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:55:59 +0000

[...] 15 May 2007: Swindle and the IPCC TAR Spaghetti Graph [...]

By: The Trick « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

The Trick « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!] — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:52:43 +0000

[...] discussion of these issues is at Climate Audit here here here and more recently by Jean S here. Jean S and UC report at CA that the puzzling end point [...]

By: The Trick « Climate Audit – mirror site

The Trick « Climate Audit – mirror site — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:32:54 +0000

[...] discussion of these issues is at Climate Audit here here here and more recently by Jean S [...]

By: MC

MC — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:41:01 +0000

Steve,

You are right on the ball. The first job of a scientist is to apply the method. Stating assumptions and inaccuracies/uncertainties
makes it science and the truth. Not doing that means you made a mistake. Continually either means you have missed it completely and
haven’t checked your work (or no-one is telling you otherwise) or you are intentionally perpetrating it.

That’s just lying.

By: jae

jae — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:29:21 +0000

50:

I do recall that the co2science summaries of the papers I read were rather partial to say the least. For example, they were happy to mention the favourable information about the Sajama glacier but not the two other Andes glaciers nor the three Tibetan glaciers mentioned in the following Thomson paper.

?? Your link is to the co2science summary, not Thompson’s paper. As I recall, Thompson papers are taboo around here, because they cannot be audited.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Mon, 21 May 2007 11:47:35 +0000

#41,

Additionally, the bridge still existed after they stopped having frost fairs.

#38,

Deeper water freezes more slowly.

#40,

CO2science has an archive of papers from all over the world showing the existance of a worldwide MWP.